New airplanes nearing fruition? A330neo, 757RS buzz increasing

Development of two airplanes–the Airbus A330neo and a replacement for the Boeing 757–may be pushing to the forefront, according to two news articles yesterday.

Reuters reports that a decision whether to proceed with the Airbus A330neo could come before the Farnborough Air Show, even if a formal launch isn’t announced at the international event next month.

Bloomberg reports that Boeing may be nearing the launch of a 757 replacement sooner than expected.

A330neo

We’ve written extensively about both prospective airplanes, with the A330neo concept one of many subjects from the Airbus Innovation Days. The Reuters article reports what we have been hearing for some time: the airplane could be announced at Farnborough–but it might not be, either. What is new is the increasing likelihood Rolls-Royce will become the sole-source supplier. Aviation Week originally reported this prospect.

Our Market Intelligence suggests that RR will supply the Trent 1000 TEN incorporating elements of the Trent XWB to improve fuel burn and reduce weight. Airbus is also going to have new, composite nacelles to further reduce weight and improve efficiency, according to our Market Intelligence. Incorporating sharklets will add a few percentage points of fuel savings to the long-range cruise. We’re skeptical of the estimated 14%-15% fuel savings claimed in the Reuters article–this number, if it is achieved, would have to come for the longest range rather than the 2,000nm Airbus likes to promote as an average mission.

We concluded last December that Airbus must proceed with the A330neo. Our A330neo Study points out that Airbus faces a production imbalance with Boeing beginning in 2016, as demand for the A330ceo declines and Boeing ramps up production of the 787. Without an A330neo, by the middle of the next decade, Boeing would have two-thirds of the medium, twin-aisle production market, adjusted for ramp ups in the 787, 777X and A350 programs and declines in the A330ceo and 777 Classic lines.

Even with an A330neo, we believe Airbus will reduce production rates beginning in 2016. We predict Boeing will reduce rates for the 777 Classic beginning in 2017.

Our Study also concludes that Airbus pricing for the A330neo will be aggressive vis-a-vis the 787-8/9. With the A330 line essentially paid off and only about $2bn in incremental R&D cost for the A330neo (most of which likely to be paid by the engine OEM), Airbus’ ability to drop the price of the A330neo will far outstrip Boeing’s ability to match, unless Boeing prices for market share rather than profit.

As we reported in our Innovation Days postings, one trade Airbus has to consider is engine maintenance cost. Officials say the A330ceo, with a highly mature engine, has lower maintenance costs than the 787’s new GEnx and RR engines. The 787’s nacelles, with highly advanced materials, are said to be very costly to maintain and overhaul, according to Market Intelligence. Airbus acknowledged to us that this maintenance delta will narrow considerably for the A330neo.

757 Replacement

The 757 replacement is another topic we’ve discussed at length. We don’t doubt the accuracy of Bloomberg’s reporting, but we are skeptical that Boeing is preparing to make an announcement soon. We’ve not checked with our sources for a few months on this issue, but the timing we were told then was that a 757/737 replacement family would not be launched until the 777X enters flight testing in 2018 or 2019, with EIS in 2025/2027; we’re reported this before.

Boeing is in a more precarious position than rival Airbus. The 737-9 doesn’t match up to the A321neo (and sales figures certainly support this) and neither is as good on long-range missions as the 757. The 737 family has been updated probably as far as it can go with the MAX, say customers and others, so a new family is required–sooner than later, the thinking goes.

Although Airbus continues to state it doesn’t plan a new, clean-sheet airplane for a 2030 EIS, if Boeing launches a new set of airplanes in 2018, we believe Airbus will have no choice but to follow. This is probably why Airbus is looking at system upgrades to the neo for an EIS of around 2018, according to Aviation Week and market sourcing. We don’t believe this will be competitive, however, with a clean-sheet Boeing design.

 

48 Comments on “New airplanes nearing fruition? A330neo, 757RS buzz increasing

  1. Why would A320neo NG not be competitive with the so called NSA from Boeing? Boeing was able to stay relevant with 737NG so I have no doubt Airbus could do the same with a new wing.

    • A new wing is a bit more than just the “system upgrades” Scott referenced. Airbus seem to be planning much more of a small incremental upgrade of the NEO soon after its EIS, incorporating new technology that wasn’t available when NEO was launched – but that won’t cost an arm and a leg to implement (and certify), either.

      As for the 757 replacement – I know there’s a lot of noise out there about it, but I’m still not convinced we’ll see it launched any time soon. Consensus is that a clean-sheet 757 replacement would only make sense as part of a family, and that family would have to be the 737 replacement. Boeing are not going to launch a 737 replacement in 2018/19, at a point when MAX hasn’t even been in service for more than one or two years.
      I can’t see them launching the largest member (i.e. 757 replacement) first, either, because a) that’s just the nich that sees the most noise, not the market segment with the highest revenue potential, and b) launching with the largest member and optimising around that would make the 737-8 replacement a shrink – which isn’t ideal for what is likely to be the highest volume member of the family.

      I expect to continue to see some noise from a couple of airlines and possibly some FUD from Boeing itself regarding 757 replacement. But eventually, A321neo (probably with some additional improvements) is going to get the lion’s share of that market for now – with Boeing tweaking the 737-9, but otherwise sensibly unwilling to launch a 737MAX/757 replacement before 2020 at the earliest, with a ~2028 EIS.

      Not based on any inside industry knowledge, but on simple considerations of the following factors:
      * Cost of a clean-sheet design
      * Requirement of a 757RS to be part of a family
      * 737MAX EIS, plus 737MAX development cost and requirement to get sufficient ROI on that

      (I’m happy to be proven wrong here, but I’d be really curious to see how a pre-2020 757RS launch would get justified by Boeing, and what market dynamics it would trigger with regard to the 737MAX.)

      • Yes it is but he also said Airbus needs to launch a clean sheet SA if Boeing does it which was the point I was commenting on. Unless Boeing makes a paradigm shift with propfans or some other funky stuff I have no doubts Airbus couldn’t counter it with a comparable engine and new wing. Let’s not forget that CFRP-fuses’ offer diminishing gains the smaller the tube.

  2. Strato, it all depends on exactly what the NSA will be.
    I have no doubt a B-757-200RS will be the lead model in a new Boeing NB family, replacing both the B-737 and B-757. The question remains what will be the timing between different models of the NSA? While it is clear right now the first model will be aimed directly at a B-757 replacement, and able to out perform both the B-737-9MAX and A-321NEO, how Boeing follows up with later models is questionable. With a new B-757 type airliner, there would be no need to have a follow-up design to the B-737-9MAX. With the C-Series and updated E-Jets, will there be a small version, replacing the B-737-7MAX? Will customers like WN demand a replacement B-737-7MAX? That leaves just the B-737-8MAX model to be replaced, which could be a shorter ranged shrink from the B-757-200RS. Boeing’s proposed NSA could be a family of just two models, unless they also build a B-757-300RS. So the EIS schedule I see is the B-757-200RS first, followed by the B-757-300RS, and finally the B-737-8MAX-RS.

    • Boeing’s proposed NSA could be a family of just two models, unless they also build a B-757-300RS. So the EIS schedule I see is the B-757-200RS first, followed by the B-757-300RS, and finally the B-737-8MAX-RS.

      I generally agree that the 737-7 (just like the A319) is unlikely to see a replacement in Boeing’s and Airbus’ next generation narrowbody families.
      But I’m not so sure about a 757-300-sized airplane, either. If it does happen, I’d expect it to come online after the 737-8 and the 757 replacement.
      I’m also not sure how much sense it would make to launch the 757-200RS first, to be honest. The biggest volume is still going to be in the 737-8/-9 size category. Remember that demand for the 757 category went down sufficiently for Boeing to stop producing it, and still wasn’t sufficient to warrant bigger investments into the 737MAX to make the 737-9 (or a new 737-10) a better 757 replacement.

      Thus, I’m not sure it’s all that clever to offer a 757RS as the lead-model to a family that would encompass another, far more significant (in terms of sales volume and number of customers) model – one that with this approach would be somewhat compromised as a shrink of the 757RS.

      • A Boeing New Single Aisle within in ten years will have one thing for sure: an LLG – a longer landing gear!

        The aerodynamics are close to perfect today for the latest generation of aircraft. Tweaks with wing tip devices will just change a few percent. The main enhancements for fuel burn reduction are related to the engines with improvements of over 10 %.

        A NSA would make sense to implement far better engine technology or to switch the production to a far cheaper method to produce the airframe.

        • A NSA would make sense to implement far better engine technology or to switch the production to a far cheaper method to produce the airframe.

          True enough – and probably another reason why I don’t see an NSA launched this decade: Engine technology isn’t going to be advanced enough to justify the launch of a clean-sheet design.

        • Boeing is playing catch-up, though, isn’t it? Airbus probably still have the ability to accommodate better, and perhaps/probably bigger, GTFs, Boeing don’t, and couldn’t even accommodate the current generation GTF – they need a new airframe to do that.

        • “– they need a new airframe to do that.”

          Which would have to leapfrog the A320 by quite a margin to make any sense
          but available technology today ( or tomorrow ) does not provide boost for this.

          IMHO the “757 reborn” is a FUD campaign.

  3. I think an issue is that if Boeing launches a 170-250 seats 4000NM aircraft, Airbus will watch & launch a lighter 150-230 seat /3000NM aircraft a year later grabbing most of the market in the 7 yrs to EIS and maybe later too, listening to airlines and fine tuning market requirements.

    Mainwhile Airbus do have a credible A321 stretch option if they develop a bigger wing.

    • Mainwhile Airbus do have a credible A321 stretch option if they develop a bigger wing.

      They do, but I doubt they’re going to do it in the end, considering the cost and the fact hat it wouldn’t EIS before ~2022, less than 10 years before they expect the A320 replacement to come online.

    • As you say, the sweet spot is where the 738 and 739 exist. But Airbus can build the NEOplus and convert many A320 orders. If the A319 and the 737-7 are subsized for the current engine and wing, then the A320 is next to become obsolete, so to speak.

  4. According to the Bloomberg article: for what routes does Air Astana needs a 757? It’s 3,300 NM from Astana to Lisboa and 3,400 NM to Singapore but more than 4,500 NM to the border between the US and Canada. Air Astana operates 5 757s and 4 767 (I guess Air Astana received the last passenger version) and has 3 787s on order but about 15 A320 of all types.

    Reuters: “Boeing produces 10 787s a month but targets 14 a month by end-decade.”
    Did the miracle already occurred?

    • Bingo, from the worlds top shaker and mover largest airline that they are interested in a 757RS not the 787 and make it a headline, phooooof

  5. Boeing would be stupid to prematurely launch an all new 757-type replacement Aircraft: especially if the aircraft essentially would be a scaled-up C-series (i.e. aluminium fuselage + CFRP wing). IMHO, Airbus is much better postioned than Boeing for launching a 757 “replacement” aircraft (i.e A321 stretch + new wing).

    Quite a few people, apparently, are talking about how the new engines are the main “culprit” of the performance achieved on the 787 and A350 — which is true — but still seem not to be aware of what can be done to promote drag-reducing natural laminar flow on the wing and boundary-layer suction for hybrid laminar flow control on the tail. These important techniques offers the potential for significant reduction in drag and, consequently, for large reductions in fuel consumption. For civil airliners, the reductions in fuel consumption as a result of both natural and hybrid laminar flow may be able to reach a level equaling 30 percent of present-day fuel burn consumption.

    http://www.cdti.es/recursos/doc/eventoscdti/aerodays2011/4f1.pdf

    http://enu.kz/repository/2011/AIAA-2011-3526.pdf

    Also, a high aspect ratio wing with folding wingtips for a 757-type replacement aircraft could possibly be constructed using carbon nanotube (CNT) fibers.

    http://mdolab.engin.umich.edu/sites/default/files/Kennedy-Kenway-Martins-2014-SciTech.pdf

    • The laminar flow like e.g. sharkskin is well known but it doesn’t work reliable at grand scales.

      It is all about money. It is possible to build an aircraft with boundary layer suction but at what costs? Then all the fancy advantage of fuel burn reduction is eaten away buy the price for the aircraft (A330 vs 787). Maybe the costs for cleaning the holes is more expensive than the fuel saved…

      So today (within 10 years) the only big steps will be through the engines. Better laminar flow is a complete new aircraft but today a complete nonsense without the knowledge of future engine trends.

      • “So today (within 10 years) the only big steps will be through the engines. Better laminar flow is a complete new aircraft but today a complete nonsense without the knowledge of future engine trends.”

        Exactly why Boeing would be stupid to launch an all new 757 replacement aircraft where the only real “big steps” would be through the engines.

  6. The 787 is powered by engines from Rolls or GE, but industry sources say GE is now expected to be more proactive in cutting deals with airlines that help Boeing compete with the A330neo.

    So, GE will help Boeing to compete with the A330neo. Hmm, that doesn’t sound too reassuring. A $25-$30 billion programme in need of help in order to compete with a $2 billion upgrade of a platform that together with the original A340 cost $3.5 billion to develop (i.e. $6 billion in today’s dollar value).

    IMJ, GE Aviation made a massiv strategic mistake in not offering an engine for the A350-1000. In order to remain prosperous, they better hope that Airbus’ wide-body market share doesn’t continue to slowly creep up to level occupied by Boeing back in the ’80s with a dominant near-monopoly position in the market. 😉

    • IIRC, the RR has exclusive engine rights across the entire A-359 family. So GE was never in the running for an engine for the A-3510 in reality.
      GE is selling engines, not Boeing airplanes. If they want their engines to be competitive against a Trent-1000-TEN powered A-330, then they have to support the Boeing products their engines power.
      GE is not the exclusive engine aboard the B-787. GE and RR have roughly a 50-50 share of those B-787 sales. On the A-330, the GE CF-6-80E engine is very popular, and perhaps the best seller engine on the type today. They at least do far better than P&W does on the A-330. For Airbus to shut them out of an A-330NEO marketing program does not make sense. Airbus selected two different engines for the A-320NEO family, because they could fit both engines under the wing. Airbus offers two engine choices for the A-380 program. So, from a marketing POV it makes sense for Airbus, and Boeing to offer choices in engines on as many products as they can.

      • “IIRC, the RR has exclusive engine rights across the entire A-359 family. So GE was never in the running for an engine for the A-3510 in reality.”

        Not correct.

        GE didn’t want to offer an engine for the first iteration of the A350-1000 — the 298 metric tonnes MTOW version and a thrust requirement of some 93,000 lbs. As GE officials said at the time; they didn’t want to develop a new engine for the A350-1000 that Airbus was aiming directly at the 777-300ER, which GE has the exclusive engine contract for. It was only when Airbus increased the MTOW of the A350-1000 to 308 metric tonnes in 2011, that RR was given exclusivity in order to develop the 97,000 lbs thrust TXWB-97 engine.

        http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/airbus-ends-show-with-singapore-fling/2007/06/22/1182019371306.html

        “GE is selling engines, not Boeing airplanes. If they want their engines to be competitive against a Trent-1000-TEN powered A-330, then they have to support the Boeing products their engines power.”

        Of course, but that doesn’t change the fact that GE shot themselves in the foot on the A350. It was the gift from GE to RR that keeps on giving.

        “For Airbus to shut them out of an A-330NEO marketing program does not make sense.”

        Of course it makes sense. GE comes to Toulouse and tells Airbus that they should put the GEnx-2B67 engine on the A330, while RR tells Airbus that they will develop an engine optimised for an A330neo. Who would you choose?

        After an Airbus/GE meeting at the Paris Air Show, Leahy accused GE of playing favourites. “The problem we have with GE is they go to Seattle and say, ‘What kind of engine should we design for your airframe?’ Then they come to Toulouse and say, ‘Here is the kind of airframe you need to build to fit our engine’,” he told the Seattle PI.

        http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/engines-the-thrust-of-the-boeing-airbus-battle/story-e6frg95x-1111115966647?nk=497577bfef1918cde4a083100e00c2ac

        “Airbus offers two engine choices for the A-380 program. So, from a marketing POV it makes sense for Airbus, and Boeing to offer choices in engines on as many products as they can”

        Why don’t you go and say that to Boeing? .For a very long time they have, again and again, chosen GE/CFM as their exclusive engine provider while GE has seemingly been happy going along playing favourites. GE’s failure to secure a solid market access by not being present on Airbus wide-bodies going forward, is a failure of their own making.

      • Airbus offers two engine choices for the A-380 program. So, from a marketing POV it makes sense for Airbus, and Boeing to offer choices in engines on as many products as they can

        As Leahy said at the time when GE were reluctant to get on board with the A350XWB, it’s certainly an advantage to be able to offer a choice, but he’s never lost an RFP due to lack of engine choice. Boeing would probably agree, not ever having offered an engine choice on their best-selling 737. The best-selling 777 variant also offers no engine choice, neither is the 777X going to.

        Just for laughs and giggles, here’s a short overview of engines choices (or lack thereof) for all A, B and MDD jetliners:
        Airbus:
        A300 – P&W, GE
        A310 – P&W
        A320ceo – IAE, CFM
        A320neo – P&W, CFM
        A330ceo – P&W, RR, GE
        A330ceo – RR (rumoured)
        A340-200/-300 – CFM
        A340-500/-600 – RR
        A350XWB – RR
        A380 – EA, RR

        Boeing:
        707/720 – P&W
        707-320/-420 – P&W, RR
        717 – RR
        727 – P&W
        737-100/-200 – P&W
        737 Classic/NG/MAX – CFM
        747-100 – P&W, GE
        747-200/SP/-300/-400 – P&W, RR, GE
        747-8 – GE
        757 – P&W, RR
        767-200/-400 – P&W, GE
        767-300 – P&W, RR; GE
        777-200/-200ER/-300 – P&W, RR, GE
        777-200LR/-300ER/-8X/-9X – GE
        787 – GE, RR

        Douglas/McDonnell Douglas:
        DC-8 – P&W
        DC-9 – P&W
        DC-10-10/-15/-30 – GE
        DC-10-40 – P&W
        MD-80 – P&W
        MD-11 – P&W, GE
        MD-90 – IAE

        You can draw your own conclusions from this, but this shows that having an engine choice is by no means a given; most plane types didn’t offer one in the beginning, and Douglas/MDD only ever offered a choice on the MD-11.

        Why don’t you go and say that to Boeing? .For a very long time they have, again and again, chosen GE/CFM as their exclusive engine provider while GE has seemingly been happy going along playing favourites. GE’s failure to secure a solid market access by not being present on Airbus wide-bodies going forward, is a failure of their own making.

        Well, there is a trend on both sides there, to be honest, at the same time that GE got the exclusive deal on the 773ER, RR got an exclusive deal on the A345/A346. If the A345/A346 were still selling today, one would just as easily draw a line “A345/A346 exclusivity for RR -> A350XWB exclusivity for RR -> A330neo exclusivity for RR” like is now commonly drawn for GE/Boeing: “773ER/772LR exclusivity for GE -> 747-8 exclusivity for GE -> 777X exclusivity for GE”.

        I see some problems with that trend – chiefly that the interdependency of engine makers and plane OEMs is growing. Boeing has a problem if the GE9X doesn’t perform, and GE has a problem if the 77X doesn’t sell. Same for Airbus/RR with the A350XWB and TrentXWB.
        This situation may have been brought about by the fact that in the widebody space there is effectively a duopoly of engine makers at the moment. I would expect things to get a bit more mixed up again once P&W re-enters that market segment.

      • “Well, there is a trend on both sides there, to be honest, at the same time that GE got the exclusive deal on the 773ER, RR got an exclusive deal on the A345/A346. If the A345/A346 were still selling today, one would just as easily draw a line “A345/A346 exclusivity for RR -> A350XWB exclusivity for RR -> A330neo exclusivity for RR”

        Not true in regard to the A345/A346. RR ended up being the sole engine provider but the agreement with RR was not based on exclusivity.**

        Again, RR didn’t ask Airbus for an exclusive deal on the A350 when the programme was launched. RR wasn’t granted one either as Airbus, apparently, hoped GE would come to their senses and offer an engine for the A350-1000 as well.

        Hence, the A330neo will be the first Airbus aircraft where the engine OEM will be granted exclusivity at at the outset of the programme (i.e. the A310 used both P&W JT9D-7R4 engines and GE CF6-80-A3/-C2 engines — Wiki is wrong. 😉 )

        **

        Airbus Industrie has struck a non-exclusive deal with Rolls-Royce for the supply of its Trent 500 engines.

        The agreement ends Airbus’s search for a powerplant supplier for the A340-500 and -600 ultra long-range/stretch versions of the A340.

        It is believed that Airbus continues to keep the door open to Pratt &Whitney, which offered a development of the PW4000, although the financial case for offering a second engine on what is likely to be a limited market is doubtful.

        Both engine makers were previously insisting on an exclusive deal with Airbus, something the airframe builder had been reluctant to concede. The decision ends a tortuous series of negotiations for Airbus, which started in 1996 with an exclusive deal with General Electric on a brand-new engine for the aircraft.

        http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/airbus-makes-trent-500-deal-with-rolls-royce-4805/

        http://www.geaviation.com/press/cf6/cf6_19960415.html

      • Thanks, OV-099, for the additional details.
        You’re right about the A310 – sorry, I should’ve double-checked 😉

        As for the A345/A346: Fair enough it wasn’t an exclusive deal from the outset, but as the article you quote stated, when RR was on board, people were already aware that chances of offering a second engine choice were slim.
        By the way – I won’t argue against the implication that Boeing has traditionally been the one to lean towards exclusivity agreements, and still seems to be pursuing them more eagerly than Airbus. Regarding the A330neo, for instance, I do think that a single engine supplier makes more sense because of the cost involved for the engine maker and the somewhat limited lifespan of the programme. In that sense, it also made sense to only offer a single engine on the 747-8.

      • ” On the A-330, the GE CF-6-80E engine is very popular, and perhaps the best seller engine on the type today.”

        Sorry mate but that’s not true. The best seller on A330 is RR’s Trent 700 which captured more than 75% of recent orders and has over 57% market share overall. More than 1000 Trent 700s are built for A330 and many hundreds are currently on order.

  7. Boeing already has a 757 replacement…it’s stable mate, the 767. It is a 170-250 seat aircraft, twin aisle for easy turnarounds, (there was lots of talk about the NSA being a twin aisle, 7 abreast airliner), plenty of range, slotted perfectly between the 788 and 739MAX…and it’s still in production….just make it a cheap and dirty 767MAX.

    Since the 767 already shares engines with the 747, the GEnx-2Bs of the 748 could be made to fit, giving it over a 10% reduction in fuel burn. Add on some aero tricks like scimitar wingtips, maybe a laminar flow tail for another 3-6%. The 762 has an OEW of 80,000lbs lighter than the 788 so with this setup couldn’t help but beat the 788 on trip costs on 4-6000nm segments.

    Base the aircraft on the USAF tanker for even more economics of scale. Too many look as the 788 as the 767 successor…but they aren’t even close to being in the same league….the 788 is way more aircraft than required for 757 roles. The 762 is pretty much perfect.

    The 767 is making money for airlines today at these sky high fuel prices…tack on some 15% savings for a transcon/trans atlantic, (even short trans Pacific), airliner that can also make money hauling cargo and is already supported by a global infrastructure.

    While only required for a niche role, the point to point trans atlantic, medium haul with high/hot/short field performance will never completely go away…and a GEnx’d 767 would almost have enough power to hover. Those engines may be overkill but they could be made to fit and even if they are thousand or so pounds heavier than the current offerings, that still leaves a whole 737’s worth of weight as the OEW difference.

    Boeing has nothing else that can be made to fit that role and the NSA isn’t going to happen until at least the next decade.

    • Boeing already has a 757 replacement…it’s stable mate, the 767. It is a 170-250 seat aircraft, twin aisle for easy turnarounds, (there was lots of talk about the NSA being a twin aisle, 7 abreast airliner), plenty of range, slotted perfectly between the 788 and 739MAX…and it’s still in production….just make it a cheap and dirty 767MAX.

      Scott and other already looked at the viability of the 767 as a 757 replacement. Short version: Forget it. if it was a fit, we’d see 767 pax sales now – which are notable by their absence.
      As for the 767MAX: Never mind that there’s no such thing as “cheap and dirty” these days any more (which reflects on the purchase price – list prices for 763ER are almost double that of a 737-9 as it is, a differential that would , that possibility has already been discussed ad nauseam in the comments here and on a.net. Again, short version: Forget it. Even the die-hard 767 fans at DL have ordered A330s at this point, and there’s no reason why a 767MAX would suddenly be competitive with an A330neo when the base-767 isn’t with the A330ceo.

    • I have also felt that way about the 767, the line is still open, its design is not that old but to replace the 757,it would need short field performance and the current 767 does not have that. If the genX can hover as you say, it would be a great niche aircraft.

  8. Cannot believe Boeing shut down the 757 line and scrapped the tooling without carefully considering potential enhancements.
    It seems clear that they decided that no future market existed regardless of technology improvements.
    With the current A321NEO and even 737-9MAX covering such a large portion of the replacement market they will not bother.
    Moving now on an NSA with 757 capabilities at the top end would make the credibility of the 737MAX very tenuous and I do not think Boeing would want to cede any further market share.

    • At the time Boeing closed the B-757 line, they had a replacement in the wings, the B-787-3. The -3 was suppose to replace the B-752, B-753, B-762 (non ER), B-763 (non ER), A-306, A-312, and A-313. It was also suppose to be a short ranged Japanese domestic airliner. It could also fly US TRANSCON and some Caribbean routes. But it fell under the axe because of program/management problems with its longer ranged sister, the B-787-8.

    • Andrew and KC, the 757 line shut down because no one was buying any. Orders in 2001 = 37 . 2002 = NONE; 2003 = 7; program terminated October 2003; last delivery 2005 [from Wikipedia]

      As for a 757-300 replacement, why bother? There were 1,049 757’s delivered, but only 55 were 757-300’s.

      Is a 767-200 a replacement because it has a similar seat count? Nope. It’s too heavy. Typical 757 OEW was around 127,500 lbs [-200, with 200 pax] and 142,400 [-300, with 243 pax]. Typical OEW of the original non-ER 767-200 was much more – 176,700 lbs, with 224 pax. [two-class, all data from Wikipedia]

  9. If boeing does go for a clean sheet 757, I think airbus would be wise to hold off on a clean sheet, but instead re-wing the a320 series, and use newer lighter aluminum alloy skin to further reduce weight, whilst lowering the ‘risk’.

    An elongated a321 (if necessary) could be added to match the new-757. The a320 series is such a great dimensioned fuselage, airbus just need to upgrade the materials and clean up the frame/wing for longer ranges. A modular designed wing core frame, capable of strengthening and elongation for larger models would be ideal, from a production perspective.

  10. The next aircraft will lower costs by moving 200 to 250 passengers at once. How much fuel efficiency does a new wing bring to the table? New engine? 3/4 of the empty weight of the A332, or the 783. Seems like there is a good opportunity to recognize fuel savings and CASM over the NEO and MAX with the option for more range as well.

  11. Remember this is Boeing we are talking about here. Risk averse, read my lips, “no new airplanes”.

    No my friends, the next new innovation in the Boeing Business Model is where we pay Boeing NOT to make an aircraft because it will be cheaper to taxpayers (please, whatever you want, anything but another 10 billion tax cut)

  12. I agree that enhanced A321with an additional 1000nm range seems to be the best answer. Someone made a good point that the 757 just stopped selling, so the market may not be big enough to make it worthy to come up with a clean sheath airplane.

    Alternatively, if “growth” is continued to be expected then an enhanced / de-rated A330-200 NeoRegional could be used instead. Hello Delta.

    This brings the next point. The A330-200 and 300 Neo’s are starting to look better and better and like jacks of all trades. Derated 200’s Neo’s as a 757 replacement, 200’s Neofor long haul thin routes, bigger 300 Neo’s for regional short/ medium routes, or longer range 300′ Neo’s. With 99.7 a percent dispatch reliability, the most comfortable 2-4-2 cabin configuration, and commonality for pilots, the business case for 330-Neo’s should be solid. Especially, for those who already have A330’s and 757 ( US air, Delta)

    • ???? A derated A-330-200NEO won’t sell as a B-757 replacement. Why would an airline want to fly an A-330-200 with an operating weight more than 100,000 lbs heavier than a B-757-200W? The EOW of the A-330-200 (no NEO, no regional, no derate) of 263,700 lbs. The B-757-200W has a MTOW of 255,000 lbs, and the B-757-300W has a MTOW of 272,500 lbs.
      Both models of the B-757 also have better runway performance than the much bigger A-330. The B-752 uses about 6500′ of runway at MTOW, and the B-753 uses about 7800′ at MTOW (SL, ISA, 50′ obstacle, RB211-535E4B engines). The current A-332 uses 9100′ of runway at MTOW (SL, ISA, 50′ obstacle, RR Trent 772B engines). Also the A-330 needs a much bigger gate at the terminal with its 197′ WS compared the B-757Ws 130′ (124′ without blended winglets).
      The A-321 is the closest Airbus product to the B-757, but falls short on range (by about 1000 nm) and single class capacity (B-757 = 239, A-321 = 220).and has a slightly slower cruise airspeed (B-757 = .80M, A-321 = .78M) and max cruise (B-757 = .86M, A-321 = .82M).

  13. Fully loaded with 250-300 passengers in two classes, with a full belly of LD3’s on 6-10 hour flights. Thats where the A330 defeated its competitors and forced Boeing to build same sized 787. I can not see the A330 being a very efficient option up to 4 hours, same as 787-3. Too heavy, large and expensive.

  14. In 2010, when it became clear Boeing 737 would have a problem against future A321 versions I suggested a more radical upgrade

    http://s191.photobucket.com/user/keesje_pics/media/Boeing737-900NGXfrontside.jpg.html

    Bigger better engines and nose section/systems were the major upgrades. It was totally expected the inherent disadvantages of the -900 against the A321 would become visible and action would be required after 2015.

    http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/4907469/

  15. i enjoyed the last line of the reuters article.

    “The re-engined A330 is accordingly expected to be marketed as the entry point for Airbus’s wide-body portfolio, prompting some in the industry to give it a different name: the A350-200/300.”

    It reminded me of the old saying . . . “you can put lipstick on a pig but it’s still a pig”

  16. keesje, back in the early 1990’s when the 737NG was but a gleam in Boeing’s eye, I asked one of the senior designers “why not adapt the 757 nose section?”. The reply was that the 757 nose section was taken from the 767 and grafted onto the single-aisle 727 fuselage. Grafting it onto the 737 would /a/ add a lot a of weight possibly making the airplane nose heavy thus needing to shrink the fwd fuselage and extend the aft fuselage to rebalance the airplane which does odd things to rotation geometry and /b/ possibly result in a unique type rating vs common to all other 737’s. Both th41 and 42 sections would have to be recontoured since the constant section would move forward.

    Too bad – the 737 flight deck has been too small since the 737-100.

    Boeing may have pulled the 757’s plug a decade too early. Had sales or the delivery stream justified keeping the line open thus preserving the tooling there could have been a 757NG or 757MAX: a 737NG flight deck, GTF or leap-x engines uprated to around 40,000 lbs thrust, Sky interior, plus lots of aerodynamic tweaks. Maybe a new wing, perhaps good enough for M.82 or .84 cruise. Not gonna happen. Too bad.

    Concerning the A321NEO: the fuselage is the correct size for a 757 replacement, but the wing is too small [1320 sq ft vs 1995 sq ft] and it is underpowered [35,000 lbs P&WA GTF vs 40,000 lbs] for the GW [206,000 vs 255,000 lbs] needed to fly the longest 757 routes. It’s al a bit slower, .M.78 vs .80 cruise

  17. The key point in this debate (757 replacement ?) is the range (3,500 nm —-> 4,500 nm), not so much the size (180 – 230 pax, forget the 753 !). If then we resolutely decide to go for the range, trading in the size, the A321 NEO with three ACTs gains apprx. three more flight hours’ worth of additional range, times 1/0.86 to account for the NEO effect, on top of the already generous range of the A321 CEO as of today … what more do you want to have a (somewhat higher-frequency) proper 752 replacement range-wise, 175 seats two class/160 seats three-class – WITH CLS ! … Make it H21QR NEO instead of [3+3], and operators will enjoy up to three AKH positions underbelly (instead of only one), for additional payfreight revenue …?

  18. I’ve always sort of wondered what might have been if the 757 platform, overpowered as it was, had been adapted to a smaller/cheaper freighter instead of the 767. Maybe it wouldn’t have enough fuel, for any putative KC-Y/X competitions, but it might have made an advantage there which Airbus couldn’t have filled of course, as a cheaper/smaller tanker, and sustained itself in production (with P/W power plants and plenty of room for Pip’s) much longer as the 767-2C is now likely to do. I do suspect the commercial viability of that platform could have then been greater longer term than the 767, especially in light of the later 737Max (and off-putting of Y1/cancellation of 787-3).

    oh well, hindsight….

    • The B-757 would not have made a good tanker. It was a 255,000 lbs. airplane with a super critical wing. It could not carry enough transferable fuel and the wing created severe turbulence for smaller lighter weight aircraft behind it (like fighters). The B-737-700ER/BBJ would make a better small tanker. The B-737-700ER carries about 10,700 USG (about 72,800 lbs.), while the B-757-200W carries about 11,500 USG (about 78,200 lbs.), but the B-757 burns a lot more fuel than the B-737 does.
      The B-767-2C carries about 2.5 X that amount of fuel (about 212,000 lbs.).

      • I just can’t resist to mention the A320 might be a better MRTT aircraft due to the greater fuselage diameter and the option to move LD3-45. Another one trick pony leads to another KC-135 with far to less flying hours compared to its age.

        “The B-767-2C carries about 2.5 X that amount of fuel […]”
        Wrong. The B767-2C is still not in the air.
        Better: “The B767-2C might carry some day about 2.5 X that …”

        For the A330 MRTT it is three times more than a possible single aisle tanker. Just think about how much more fuel a A330MRTT-NEO could finally deliver even compared to a KC-10 at long distances?

        • Since the military does not use LD-3s, the slightly wider fuselage of the A-320 family is irrelevant. But for a small tanker, the A-319LR/CJ would be the best of the family because it carries more fuel. It carries 7980 USG ( about 54,300 lbs.), which is some 18,000 lbs. less fuel than the B-737-700ER. None of the A-320 family have a cargo floor, or cargo door, which would be required. The B-737-700 does have a cargo floor and cargo door option that is already certified. It is available on the B-737-700C and the C-40A.

          Wrong. The B767-2C is still not in the air.
          Better: “The B767-2C might carry some day about 2.5 X that …”

          The same could be said for your proposed A-330MRTT-NEO.

        • An A319LR comes with a capacity of 7,980 US gal fuel. The A319CJ has two additional fuel tanks and a volume of 10,640 US gal ( ~32 t) with 6 auxiliary fuel tanks.
          http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/acj/

          A 737-700 needs 9 auxiliary fuel tanks to reach 10,707 US gal.
          http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/Boeing737ERauxtankandcargopresentation.jpg

          OEW for A319CJ is about 41 t and 42.9 t for 737BBJ with 9 auxiliary tanks.
          http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/commercial/airports/acaps/737.pdf (page 30)
          MTOW for 737BBJ is 77.5 t and 75.9 t for A319.
          About 34.5 t fuel for a 737BBJ and 34.9 for A319.

          The original A330MRTT has a MTOW of 233 t. Now an A330 with an MTOW of 242 t is available. Or about 19,800 lbs more fuel.

          • the number of aux fuel tanks in the belly cargo holds is irrelevant. The USAF would only use these compartments for maintenance of the tanks, not for cargo. Cargo would be carried on the main deck to work with USAF cargo loading equipment (25K and 40K Loaders).
            Don’t forget, neither the A-319CJ, nor B-737BBJ versions would be used, as tankers don’t need all those interior fittings and furnishings. So, both would be substantially lighter in EOW.
            The A-319 has no other wing options. The B-737-700ER can be ordered with the B-737-800 wing.
            But this whole discussion is mute. No large Air Force will order a small tanker. It makes more sense to order the KC-767, KC-46, or A-330MRTT.

  19. Seems like the next step for the GTF engine. Build a 45K engine with a 93″ fan.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *